De-Extinction: Pro & Con Values & Assumptions
Bring ‘em back!
Let them stay extinct!
Moral Obligation: Humans have caused
hundreds of extinctions in our history, we have the
moral obligation to repair some of the damage.
Irresponsible: The best use of the limited money
available is to protect and restore LIVING
threatened and endangered species, of which
there are thousands. Do we bring mammoths back
as we watch elephants go extinct?
Restore Balance: Just like the documented
benefits of returning wolves to Yellowstone N.P.,
restoring extinct keystone species will benefit
ecosystems by increasing biodiversity, and
perhaps even slow climate change (herbivory by
mammoths would help).
Umbrella Species: Reintroducing thylacines,
mammoths, or passenger pigeons would cause
people to WANT to protect and preserve their
habitats, thus INCREASING conservation of
endangered ecosystems and all the species that
inhabit them.
Wonder & Hope: Bringing back extinct species
would lead to INCREASED interest in Science and
Technology, and actually increase people’s interest
in protecting endangered species.
Scientific Advancement: De-extinction projects
would magnify our understanding of genetics,
which would lead to huge advances in science,
such as disease prevention in both animals and
humans.
Costs Not that High: Breeding animals and
raising them until there are sufficient numbers to
release into the wild would be initially very costly,
but the latter expenses should be comparable to
breeding livestock or preserving other endangered
wildlife.
Money: The admission fees to Pleistocene Parks
or to zoos could be used to fund further
deextinction or to protect living endangered
species.
Public Consciousness: De-extinction sends the
wrong message to the public, namely that genetic
science all by itself can ‘save’ species, so there is
no need to worry about protecting nature…science
can always bring them back from a test tube.
Better Use: The best use of this new genetic
technology is to reintroduce lost genetic diversity
into living endangered species (rhinos, bf ferrets) to
ensure they survive.
Not Quite the Same: Resurrected species will be
imperfect copies of their ancestors and will lack
necessary instincts and/or taught behaviors
 poor survival; fit only for zoos
Inadequate Environment: Human effects on the
planet (HIPPCO) mean the environments species
would be released into are different from 200 years
ago and under continued threat of loss or change
(climate). Black market prices for endangered
species ensure the threat of human hunting of
restored species will always be a factor.
No Playing God: DNA (genomes) are beyond our
moral comprehension, and altering species is akin
to playing God and opens up a big ole can of
worms  making ‘perfect’ species, humans.
Animal Cruelty: Early attempts to clone
endangered and extinct animals have been
unsuccessful, and resulted in the death of those
organisms.
RUBRIC
Introduction
Pro-Side
Con-Side
Conclusion
Grammar
Mechanics
Spelling
I have an appropriate Title _______ My paper is typed ______
4
3
My introduction is
inviting and clearly
written. I define the
controversy and
provide an overview of
both sides of the issue.
I present a forceful
thesis statement.
I mention at 4 or more
arguments from the
‘Pro’ side of the
argument, and state
why I agree or disagree
with them.
I define the
controversy, and
provide an overview
of both sides of the
issue. I present a
strong thesis
statement.
I define the
controversy, but
fail to identify
both sides of the
controversy. I
present a thesis
statement.
I introduce the
controversy, but
I fail to present a
thesis statement
OR introduce
both sides of the
controversy.
I mention 3
arguments from the
‘Pro’ side of the
argument, and state
why I agree or
disagree with them.
I mention at 4 or more
arguments from the
‘Con’ side of the
argument, and state
why I agree or disagree
with them.
I mention 3
arguments from the
‘Con’ side of the
argument, and state
why I agree or
disagree with them.
I provide a forceful
concluding argument
that gladdens the heart
of those who read it. I
restate my position in
different words from
the introduction, no
new evidence is
introduced.
There are no errors in
grammar, mechanics,
and/or spelling.
I provide a
concluding argument
and restate my
position in different
words from the
introduction. I do
NOT introduce new
evidence in the
conclusion
There are a few
errors in grammar,
mechanics, and/or
spelling, but they do
not interfere with
understanding.
I mention 2
arguments from
the ‘Pro’ side of
the argument, and
state why I agree
or disagree with
them.
I mention 2
arguments from
the ‘Con’ side of
the argument, and
state why I agree
or disagree with
them.
I provide a
concluding
argument but it is
essentially
worded the same
as in the intro
and/or I introduce
new evidence.
I mention 1
argument from
the ‘Pro’ side of
the argument,
and state why I
agree or
disagree.
I mention 1
argument from
the ‘Con’ side of
the argument,
and state why I
agree or
disagree.
I did not provide
a concluding
argument but
instead restated
both sides of the
controversy.
There are several
errors
in grammar,
mechanics,
and/or spelling.
There are
numerous errors
in grammar,
mechanics,
and/or spelling.
My argument is
organized but not
always clear or
consistent. I use
some transitions.
My argument is
poorly
organized, but I
present multiple
points of view.
My argument is
extremely focused and
well organized, with
Organization effective use of
transitions. I
& Focus
consistently support
my thesis and invoke
my own personal
values successfully.
My argument is
focused and well
organized, with
effective use of
transitions. I
consistently support
my thesis.
2
1
De-Extinction: Not Effective Enough
De-extinction is a process in which scientists try to bring back extinct animals. Although it’s still
in the works of being perfected, it’s amazing that technology has come so far. And although de-extinction
shows humans creating miracles, is it worth it? De-extinction is extremely expensive to do and isn’t
always successful. Is it really worth the money and effort? The answer is no. It is a proven fact that
humans have caused thousands of species to go extinct in the past ten thousand years. We certainly are the
main problem here. And although we should feel obligated to fix the problem, de-extinction is not the
right approach.
The possibility of woolly mammoths some day roaming the Earth again is very intriguing, but not
a good enough of excuse. When bringing back the California Condor the U.S spent thirty five million
dollars. Although as of now the Condor is making a good recovery, there is no way of saying that it may
never die off again. With our government in so much debt, thirty five million dollars is a big deal to just
bring a bird back. Humans play the major part in the reason that most of these animals have gone extinct,
so morally they should feel obligated to bring them back. De-extinction, however, is not the most
reasonable way. Instead of using all this money hoping to bring animals back, they can use less to put in
place methods and laws to prevent them from disappearing in the first place.
In addition to the high price of de-extinction is it’s success rate. Until recently scientists didn’t
even have success with it. Out of hundreds of attempts, you may get one that survives. So now you’ve put
all this money into saving a species and you get one animal out of it. With that one animal you have to
start the process all over again. It seems crazy to use up all this money on things that may work, when
people living in our country don’t even have food to eat. Once the success rate increases this may be a
more reasonable approach to the extinct animal problem. Until then, there are so many better uses for the
money they are proposing to use.
What species are extinct is the past. Our role as humans now is to protect the ones who are left.
It’s estimated that fifty percent of multicellular species alive now will be extinct by 2100. Now using
things like the endangered species act, we have to step forward to stop our destructive ways. Its a more
efficient and less expensive way to stop the harm that humans have caused. To some it may not be a big
deal if a few animals die off here or there. What they don’t realize is once one animal disappears, it brings
several with it. Without some of these important animals, humans begin to become affected as well.
Things don’t change until people start caring. Yes, I agree extinct animals is a very important topic, but
de-extinction is not the way to fix it.